Why are Fish decks not winning tournaments?

[hitman]

I've recently started playing Fish again and I don't understand why it's not putting up better results.  I started playing Vintage with Fish decks but I wasn't very good with them, mainly because of not understanding the stack very well.  Having played Gifts, Bomberman, Oath, Slaver, Ichorid, and a little Stax since, I've had the chance to see how Fish (UWb) can properly stop these decks.  To note, I've always played variants of Paul Nicolo's version of Fish and adjusted the maindeck for certain metagames and for new cards being printed, but it's the same shell. 

My question is whether a good amount of experience with other decks gives you a great deal of insight on how to beat them with Fish?  Is the lack of experience playing other decks the reason Fish isn't placing higher?  For reference, this is the list I'm testing right now:

4 Aether Vial
4 Chalice of the Void
3 Duress
4 Meddling Mage
4 Voidmage Prodigy
4 Dark Confidant
3 Jotun Grunt
3 Kataki, War's Wage
2 Ninja of the Deep Hours
4 Force of Will
2 Echoing Truth
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
3 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine
4 Flooded Strand
4 Tundra
2 Underground Sea
2 Island
1 Plains
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Sapphire

1 Duress
2 Umezawa's Jitte
1 Enlightened Tutor
1 Crucible of Worlds
1 Seal of Cleansing
2 Annul
1 Energy Flux
1 Mystical Tutor
2 Disenchant
2 Swords to Plowshares
2 Tormod's Crypt

Note:  The sideboard is for my local metagame.  It's not built for the general Vintage metagame

[Khahan]

One reason fish doesn't win a lot of tournaments is that its a cheap to deck to play which means it atracts a lot of new players looking to break into the scene. New players are generally inexperienced players.

Another reason is the fact that the meta is so diverse. Fish decks tend to do well vs high tier decks. However, with such a diverse meta, they tend to face a lot of 1.5 and 2 tier decks in round 1. They often lose these matches and end up facing those same types of decks throughout the losers bracket.


Personally, I think fish *should* disappear for a while because of reason 2 above. Its just the wrong time for fish. However, because of reason 1 and the fact that T1 seems to be at an all time high in popularity, I doubt fish will disappear.

[wethepeople]

Fish is a deck designed strictly around your opponent's deck. When done imcorrectly, a majority of your cards are often times "dead", and you have nothing more than a couple useless 2/2's. However, when a build is metagamed properly, and has the right matchups, it is bound to do much better.

Fish has trouble winning a tournament because it can't be designed for a very diversed metagame, and in tournaments, you generally face a fairly wide-range of decks, so it has a hard time in the remaining matchups.

Scouting, and having a good understanding of what you are going to face is important for Fish, and other metagame decks like TMWA, because it allows your deck to prepare for these decks, and give you an advantage.

The fact that newer-players are often times playing Fish does also have something to do with it, but there are many great players that I know piloting all sorts of Fish builds, some of which manage to top eight consistently.

The list you are playing looks outdated. I know that I say this about every Aether Vial-based list, but from my testing with various different lists, this has proven to be true.

[brianpk80]

Another reason is the fact that the meta is so diverse. Fish decks tend to do well vs high tier decks. However, with such a diverse meta, they tend to face a lot of 1.5 and 2 tier decks in round 1. They often lose these matches and end up facing those same types of decks throughout the losers bracket.

This is the best argument for maindecking Oath of Ghouls in my opinion.  It's the best backbone you can ask for against illbred "Mountain Lightning Bolt" and "Swamp Dark Ritual Duress Hymn" decks that kill Fish in the early rounds.  Once you resolve the Oath, most ghetto decks can't get rid of it, all of your creatures keep coming back forever (negating Hymns, Edicts, Bolts, chump blocks) and you just overwhelm. 

The list you are playing looks outdated. I know that I say this about every Aether Vial-based list, but from my testing with various different lists, this has proven to be true.

I think this comment has merit.  Vial lists need a good revolution to get with the 2007 party.  Not too much unified work has been done on Vial lists in the past year and a half.  Plus, they function best in a more predictable metagame with a choice few standout win conditions, quite unlike today.  And most importantly, Vial Fish has a fantastic Stax match-up so with the decline of Stax, the need for Vial Fish has diminished.  I think in six months or so, when we see the metagame solidify and become more predictable (like it was for most of late 2005 and early/mid 2006) a resurgence of mana denial strategies would make a ripe time for some work on Vial Fish. 

-BPK

[LotusHead]

4 Aether Vial
4 Chalice of the Void

Null Ron vs Aether Vial

Is Null Rod's Hate better than Aether Vail's ability to circument Control?

Technically, most Combo decks are Control Combo, but still.

Me thinks Null Rod >> Aether Vial..

That is just my experience (as someone who hates Null Rod)

[Tobi]

--> http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?board=43.0

 

His matchups were 3 Bomberman, UW Control and a Gifts list. All won.

[dicemanx]

I'm more inclined in believing that Fish just isn't that good of a deck. Even against decks it was supposedly designed to defeat, it *struggles*: the matches typically have two critical points: can you draw enough relevant disruption (without much in the way of card drawing to help you) early to contain the onslaught, and secondly, can you keep drawing enough relevant disruption to stop your opponent from recovering? Of course, the more you slant deck construction towards maximizing relevant disruption (for instance, running maindeck REB or Shamans) you get broadsided by non-powered non-blue archetypes, which was the "diverse meta" argument above.

Essentially, why play Fish at all if you want to win? It seems like doing so puts you at a disadvantage, and the primary motivators are either financial or wanting variety.

[GrandpaBelcher]

I'm more inclined in believing that Fish just isn't that good of a deck.
...
Essentially, why play Fish at all if you want to win? It seems like doing so puts you at a disadvantage, and the primary motivators are either financial or wanting variety.

That's pretty much what Feinstein has said as well.  If you want to make T8 at a large event like SCG, Fish is a decent choice properly metagamed.  You can't contain every broken opponent every game all day, and larger tournaments give you a good cushion to absorb some losses.  If you want to actually win a tournament like that, you have to at least give yourself the chance to steal some wins and go broken beyond playing two or three creatures on turn one with Lotus.  Whether this means playing Tinker for something cool, using a Bomberman combo, or packing a different deck is up to the player.

Of course there's always the option of ignoring the advice and continuing to play Fish, which is what I plan to do.  Fish4L.

From my own experience, and despite loving Fish, I like to play fully powered decks in smaller tournaments (less than 5 rounds).  Just the fact that a Stax deck has a chance of a turn-one Trinisphere or Crucible/Strip Mine or that combo can win before the other player drops a land gives them a huge leg up on Fish.  When every victory counts, you don't want to struggle and give your opponent more time to win.

[hitman]

@ Khahan and DicemanX, thanks for the replies.  Both replies answered my question.  I don't get to go to big tournaments and I didn't realize mono black, burn etc. was still played. 

@ LotusHead, Vial isn't just for getting around control.  It allows you to manipulate information, do tricks with the stack, and run a piece of disruption that doesn't conflict with your game plan, Chalice of the Void.  With the increased speed of the format, you need to drop a faster piece of disruption than a turn two Null Rod.  Chalice, Force of Will, and Duress allow you to interact turn one.  It's unusual to play a turn one Rod.  Chalice at one is also overwhelming for many decks.  Null Rod can't shut off so many options.  The reason some Fish decks run Aether Vial is because they also run Chalice.

Thanks for the replies.

[brianpk80]

It allows you to manipulate information, do tricks with the stack, and run a piece of disruption that doesn't conflict with your game plan, Chalice of the Void.  With the increased speed of the format, you need to drop a faster piece of disruption than a turn two Null Rod.  Chalice, Force of Will, and Duress allow you to interact turn one.  It's unusual to play a turn one Rod.  Chalice at one is also overwhelming for many decks.  Null Rod can't shut off so many options. 

It's nice to see a well informed post on AEther Vial in this forum.  I would add that negating bounce, negating counters, skirting mana denial, color-fixing, and freeing land drops for Waste/Strip, are also huge draws of the Vial.   

Essentially, why play Fish at all if you want to win?

There are some of us who have gone as far as we can with more traditional "overpowered" strategies and are bored after a string of victories involving decks starting with Mana Drain x4.  Fish is one of the most fun decks to play and one of the most open-ended while challenging to design.  It rewards players who have superlative knowledge of the metagame at a given point in time.  I'm not sure why we need a more disparaging explanation like "Fish players are ghetto poor" or "it isn't that good of a deck."

-BPK

[Grand Inquisitor]

There are some of us who have gone as far as we can with more traditional "overpowered" strategies and are bored after a string of victories involving decks starting with Mana Drain x4.  Fish is one of the most fun decks to play and one of the most open-ended while challenging to design.  It rewards players who have superlative knowledge of the metagame at a given point in time.  I'm not sure why we need a more disparaging explanation like "Fish players are ghetto poor" or "it isn't that good of a deck."

-BPK

The question posed was whether fish was good, not whether it was challenging or fun.

[Webster]

4 Aether Vial
4 Chalice of the Void

Null Ron vs Aether Vial

Is Null Rod's Hate better than Aether Vail's ability to circument Control?

Technically, most Combo decks are Control Combo, but still.

Me thinks Null Rod >> Aether Vial..

That is just my experience (as someone who hates Null Rod)

The comparison isnt null rod versus aether vial, it's null rod versus chalice of the void. There have been pages and pages on this discussion and each card has its strengths.

You dislike null rod because you are always playing with shops and play with 4 chalices of your own so your opinion, like most peoples', is rather biased based on what they've played against the most.

Web

[JuJu]

Lol, that's a pretty dumb assessment, and kind of personal targeted. It is Rod v Vial. Rod wins out because disruption > couple points of damage. whether Chalice is good or not in Fish is probably a better thing to ask, I don't think it is.

[kirdape3]

Fish : Vintage :: Boros/Red Deck Wins : Extended

Fish, until the printing of Empty the Warrens in Time Spiral, was the least powered good deck in Vintage.  You distinctly lack the ability to straight up win the game on turn 1 like a combination deck, or the ability to swamp your opponent by drawing several extra cards like any control deck.  At most, you mimic a prison deck's ability to deny the opposition the ability to play it's more powerful spells in a relevant time frame.  Fish can't break any Golden Rules (one land a turn, one card a turn, etc) as well as every other deck in the format.  That being said, for the majority of modern Vintage Fish in one form or another was one of the most consistently performing archetypes.

The reason that this paradigm has changed is now the decks that break the Golden Rules better than it can just run Empty the Warrens, which wrecks you.  You can't kill them reliably before that card will see play at storm 4-6 normally.  The current answer suite to that single card is not yet effective enough to reliably allow Fish to defeat it's intended metagame.

That's a long version of saying 'No, Fish isn't good enough anymore.'

[Webster]

Lol, that's a pretty dumb assessment, and kind of personal targeted. It is Rod v Vial. Rod wins out because disruption > couple points of damage. whether Chalice is good or not in Fish is probably a better thing to ask, I don't think it is.

What I said is definately not a dumb assessment. Perhpas you may have taken into consideration that I have a more intimate knowledge of decks that someone plays because that person plays in the same area that I frequent. I think otherwise. Such a possibility may indeed have motivated me to write what I did, because then, it would not be a fallacy, personal attack, or some random person making unsubstanciated claims over the internet. That possiblity is indeed a fact.

Furthermore, in the discussion of whether chalice of the void or aether vial in chalice fish plays the same roll in null rod fish, you have to ask yourself what exactly does each card do then make a comparison:

1. Aether vial gives you free mana, evasion from counters, tricks with meddling mage vs an EOT gifts/ true believer in response to tendrils, etc.

2. Chalice of the void shuts down spells that cost 0 and 1 mana (artifact mana, brainstorms, rituals, et al.).

3. Null rod shuts of artifact mana acceleration and some robot-related abilities.

If a person were to compare the similarities between each of the cards, null rod, chalice of the void, and aether vial, that person would come to the conclusion that null rod and chalice of the void are functionally identical. They both deny the fish opponent mana resources while fish can execute its "I am going to attack you for 4 each turn" plan.


Web

[dicemanx]

There are some of us who have gone as far as we can with more traditional "overpowered" strategies and are bored after a string of victories involving decks starting with Mana Drain x4.  Fish is one of the most fun decks to play and one of the most open-ended while challenging to design.  It rewards players who have superlative knowledge of the metagame at a given point in time.  I'm not sure why we need a more disparaging explanation like "Fish players are ghetto poor" or "it isn't that good of a deck."

Fish isn't a top tier choice as supported by tourney evidence, and is an easy deck to put together for those having trouble putting together a powered archetype. How is that disparaging? 

Also, Fish being "open-ended" and "challenging" to design can easily translate into "nothing really works very effectively, so let's keep trying other things and maybe we'll get lucky".

[ErkBek]

I'm more inclined in believing that Fish just isn't that good of a deck. Even against decks it was supposedly designed to defeat, it *struggles*: the matches typically have two critical points: can you draw enough relevant disruption (without much in the way of card drawing to help you) early to contain the onslaught, and secondly, can you keep drawing enough relevant disruption to stop your opponent from recovering? Of course, the more you slant deck construction towards maximizing relevant disruption (for instance, running maindeck REB or Shamans) you get broadsided by non-powered non-blue archetypes, which was the "diverse meta" argument above.

Essentially, why play Fish at all if you want to win? It seems like doing so puts you at a disadvantage, and the primary motivators are either financial or wanting variety.

I see where you are coming from here, but I disagree with a lot of what you've said. First off, I completely disagree with the statement that fish can't win big events. I still believe that I should have 1 day 1 of SCG Roanoke where I ran URBana fish, the reason I think I didn't was simply a minor misplay on my part that probably cost me the match, not to mention my opponent's very strong draw in game 3. I've only run URBana fish in 6 events yielding these results

1st/2nd Split ~ 15 people
Top 4 split ~ 30 people 
Scrub
1st/2nd Split in ~30-35 person event
3rd day 1 of SCG Roanoke
10th day 2 of SCG Roanoke (both losses to Meandeckers)
1st place ~ 30-40 people

Honestly, I don't think the problem is fish, its UW fish. URBana plays more disruption, better draw engine, and full power. Its got broken starts too.

One major thing about URBana fish that's not matched by any other fish deck (except maybe SS), is its ability to get a draw engine going. About 60% of your games you've got a draw engine on the board by the end of turn 2. That gives you the ability to run potentially dead cards like Red Blast in the maindeck.

Also, Fish being "open-ended" and "challenging" to design can easily translate into "nothing really works very effectively, so let's keep trying other things and maybe we'll get lucky".

Fish is a metagame deck. Its tough to build a fish deck for a very wide metagame, as with any deck. Fish suffers the most from this problem, since it can't rely on just comboing out its opponent, it has to win over the course of multiple turns. Getting ahead in a stax matchup can be negated by B-ring recursion and Gifts/PL can just combo you out, if you can't stop it.

I really don't get it. Why is everyone still running UW fish if its not winning? Especially when URBana fish has been winning. That should be the real question here.

[Smmenen]

I agree with Becker.  I think the reason Fish hasn't won has more to do with the players playing it than the deck itself.

Fish is a deck perfectly capable of winning major tournaments.    PTW won a HUGE streak of tournaments in 2004 with Fish.  Sure, that was a few years ago, but I think that if more "Dave Feinsteins" were out there trying Fish out - innovators taking Fish to the max - it would top 8 more and win more tournaments.   The fact of the matter is that the "usual" Vintage players don't play Fish because people who are regulars in Vintage tend to be attracted to playing with powerful cards like Yawg Will, Workshop, or at the least lots of Moxen.   Thus, the bulk of the regular Vintage pros tend not to play it.   That means you have a noticeably weaker player base piloting Fish.   Imagine if you took some of the expertise that is used to playing more powerful decks and put it behind a UW Fish, I believe you'd see more and better Fish results across the board. 

[dicemanx]

First off, I completely disagree with the statement that fish can't win big events.

Unfortunately, I am not making this statement. I know for a fact that Fish can win big events, and it has done so in the past even when the versions were at times considrered "weak" (remember Zheng's masterpieces?) This is more of a question of consistency in making t8/winning and whether Fish is a deck of choice if you want to maximize your chances of making t8/winning.

I know Eric that you've had success with URBana - this might be more associated with your strength and skill as a player along with the ability of the deck to perform well in a local metagame. This perhaps raises an interesting question - if a strong player can generate good results with an archetype that others struggle to do well with, is such a deck top tier, or are these players doing well in spite of, not because of, their deck choice? This goes for decks like URBana which you've piloted to success, Oath which has a pretty poor track record except in the hands of the Carps, UbaStax which is all but absent from top tables except when piloted by Vroman, and even WGD might not be that great of a deck.

Fish is a metagame deck. Its tough to build a fish deck for a very wide metagame, as with any deck. Fish suffers the most from this problem

I see this statement as being consistent with my assertion - I think you have aptly summarized why Fish isn't a top tier choice, and for all intents and purposes will never be a top tier choice. It stems from the fact that events still have quite a bit of diversity because even tourney players do not take events very seriously (why would they when you look at prize supports) and typically opt for second or third rate options when making their deck selections or when tinkering with established archetypes. That we can go to SCGP9 events and still see decks like burn and Sui, apart from the more "acceptable" options like UbaStax, Oath or WGD, makes any metagame deck a losing proposition in the long run.

Imagine if you took some of the expertise that is used to playing more powerful decks and put it behind a UW Fish, I believe you'd see more and better Fish results across the board.

"Better" results perhaps, but that might not be enough. Playing Fish against a powered explosive archetype is starting on unequal terms - if you survive the early game with Fish, the struggle still rages on - you haven't won anything, you've just survived to actually play the game. However, you are susceptible to early game blow outs and you cannot reciprocate in turn. To do consistently well in events, you need "free points" with some regularity - if every game is a struggle, then you won't be making many top 8s even if every match is 60% in your favor (which of course isn't even close).

[brianpk80]

The question posed was whether fish was good, not whether it was challenging or fun.

If you read the whole thread, you might notice that the second part of my response addressed an additional question raised: "Essentially, why play Fish at all if you want to win?"

Fish isn't a top tier choice as supported by tourney evidence, and is an easy deck to put together for those having trouble putting together a powered archetype. How is that disparaging? 

It isn't; it's a diplomatic rewrite of your original commentary.  Regarding your original remark, it shouldn't be too hard to discern what is disparaging about the insinuation that Fish is a straight-up weak deck choice that attracts impoverished players who lack the resources to helm "[better]" decks.   

That said, I question what reports are misleading you to believe that Fish hasn't put up "results" in the past year or so. 

Also, Fish being "open-ended" and "challenging" to design can easily translate into "nothing really works very effectively, so let's keep trying other things and maybe we'll get lucky".

No, open-ended refers to the fact that the archetype has more fungible component cards than any other popular deck genre granting the designer a greater breadth of creative opportunity and challenging refers to the inherent challenges in building a cohesive reactive deck whose success depends on the choices of others and nothing innately broken in Fish itself.  If you want to read something out of that akin to "Fish designers just throw everything at the wall and see what sticks," well then have fun interpreting. 

Lol, that's a pretty dumb assessment, and kind of personal targeted. It is Rod v Vial. Rod wins out because disruption > couple points of damage.

With all respect, this is a very crude comparison of disruption pieces in Fish builds.  Webster is right on the money here; the correct comparison is between Null Rod and Chalice of the Void because both have the primary objective of strangling your opponent's mana base.  AEther Vial is used to disrupt your opponent's win conditions rather than mana base.  This is why True Believer, Voidmage Prodigy, Gilded Drake, and some others are MVP's in Vial lists while they don't hold their weight as well in Rod lists.   

whether Chalice is good or not in Fish is probably a better thing to ask, I don't think it is.

But this part is correct.  Chalice of the Void is amazing in Stax and Tyrant Oath and other decks that are capable of manipulating the Chalice with consistency (Welding it, bouncing it, etc.) and that have mana curves that can consistently tolerate Chalice @ 1.  On the other hand, it's inconsistent in Fish because you either play it Turn 1 @ 0 and gain some leverage or you resign yourself to dead Chalice draws for the rest of the game.  Chalice @ 1 or @ 2 is unreliable even in Vial lists because then it is burdened by interdependence; if you don't have a Vial, you're locking yourself out just as much as the opponent.  And Chalice @ 0 on the draw is too little too late most of the time, so in Fish lists, I always found Tormod's Crypt to be the best artifact counterpart to AEther Vial.  I have given Chalice over seven different chances (seven different lists, not a mere seven games) to impress me in Fish lists, and it failed each time. 

-BPK

[dicemanx]

It isn't; it's a diplomatic rewrite of your original commentary.  Regarding your original remark, it shouldn't be too hard to discern what is disparaging about the insinuation that Fish is a straight-up weak deck choice that attracts impoverished players who lack the resources to helm "[better]" decks.

The only disparaging insinuation is the one that you crafted in your mind. Thanks for asking me to clarify nonetheless if you weren't sure.

That said, I question what reports are misleading you to believe that Fish hasn't put up "results" in the past year or so.

The argument is about whether Fish is a top tier choice for a player wishing to maximize his chances of making t8 or winning an event, not whether it has "put up results" - obviously it has. Can we at least agree that decks that have won or made t8 in the past aren't automatically top tier or best choices to maximize chances of winning?

Furthermore, Fish has one of the worst ratios of Fish decks entered in an event versus number of Fish decks in the t8 in major NA events in 2006 - take out Feinstein's results and the numbers get much worse. Even with the quantities of Fish decks played in 2006, they still lagged behind the number of Gifts, Long, and CS decks that were making it into t8s. A player of intermediate or high skill level is very likely better off playing a powered archetype then going with Fish.

Or are you able to show me numbers suggesting otherwise?

[Purple Hat]

The question posed was whether fish was good, not whether it was challenging or fun.

If you read the whole thread, you might notice that the second part of my response addressed an additional question raised: "Essentially, why play Fish at all if you want to win?"

Fish isn't a top tier choice as supported by tourney evidence, and is an easy deck to put together for those having trouble putting together a powered archetype. How is that disparaging? 

It isn't; it's a diplomatic rewrite of your original commentary.  Regarding your original remark, it shouldn't be too hard to discern what is disparaging about the insinuation that Fish is a straight-up weak deck choice that attracts impoverished players who lack the resources to helm "[better]" decks.   

That said, I question what reports are misleading you to believe that Fish hasn't put up "results" in the past year or so. 

below is how you quoted dicemanx for your response.

Essentially, why play Fish at all if you want to win?

There are some of us who have gone as far as we can with more traditional "overpowered" strategies and are bored after a string of victories involving decks starting with Mana Drain x4.  Fish is one of the most fun decks to play and one of the most open-ended while challenging to design.  It rewards players who have superlative knowledge of the metagame at a given point in time.  I'm not sure why we need a more disparaging explanation like "Fish players are ghetto poor" or "it isn't that good of a deck."

-BPK

Now we compare that to his full statement...

Essentially, why play Fish at all if you want to win? It seems like doing so puts you at a disadvantage, and the primary motivators are either financial or wanting variety.

so, dicemanx went on to cite the exact same reason you cite as the reason you, personally, play fish.  He points out that wanting variety is a perfectly good reason to play fish.  also he says that many players play fish because it is inexpensive, a fact to which any player who attends a major tournament can attest.  In addition he states his opinion, an opinion shared by many, that fish is not as good as many other type one decks, and is therefore not a good choice for type one tournament play.  I don't really understand why you took his saying "I don't think it's a good deck" so personally, but I'm positive it was not intended that way.

dicemanx responded while I was typing this but I looked up all these quotes so I'm gonna post it anyway, I'll go on to add something relevant here though.

I haven't played URBana fish, but in my experience playing against fish players I generally find that I am able to work around their answers simply because their clock is too slow and it takes too much hate to beat most of the current top decks.  don't get me wrong, I've lost games to the hate in fish, I got locked out by a player who tapped 2 aether vials to play his second and third meddling mages of the match thus locking me out of all my animate spells when I was playing dragon.  it happens, but as decks get faster and maintain the same power the number of times you'll have to be holding 2 or 3 or 4 answers having seen 8 or 9 or 10 cards only grows.  Fish simply cannot produce the volume of cards needed or the pressure needed for any but the best players to win with it consistently.  Even some of those players (Feinstein, for example) are now turning away from fish in favor of more powerful strategies.

Hale

[brianpk80]

The only disparaging insinuation is the one that you crafted in your mind. Thanks for asking me to clarify nonetheless if you weren't sure.

(emphasis added)

Peter, I must have a very vivid imagination to have fabricated the delusion that you ever said "I'm more inclined in believing that Fish just isn't that good of a deck...  Essentially, why play Fish at all if you want to win? It seems like doing so puts you at a disadvantage, and the primary motivators are either financial or wanting variety."  It's nice that you're retreating from your initial overbroad swipe at the archetype, but it's puzzling that you now deny the magnitude of your remark.  

A player of intermediate or high skill level is very likely better off playing a powered archetype then going with Fish.  

Either that or for reasons independent of deck quality, they gravitate towards those powered archetypes (which is more along the lines of  Becker's and Steve's arguments).  I had more to write but for this limited instance, I realized it was easier to just snip the parts I didn't feel like addressing.  A familiar tactic perhaps...

I don't really understand why you took his saying "I don't think it's a good deck" so personally, but I'm positive it was not intended that way.

I haven't played Fish in months (see the caveat in my updated post in the Vintage Forum) so I'm not sure why you so easily assume I take these comments "personally."   Thanks for your contribution.   

-BPK

[Godder]

Nothing was meant personally. Move on, folks.

[dicemanx]

It's nice that you're retreating from your initial overbroad swipe at the archetype, but it's puzzling that you now deny the magnitude of your remark.

I'm not retreating from anything - that my remark has some "magnitude" that is supposedly disparaging is your (mis)interpretation. My "swipe" was based on cold numbers. How can the remarks be "disparaging" if they were based on a valid possible interpretation of the evidence? Just out of curiosity, do you know the numbers which apparently are misleading me? Perhaps I'll do us all a favor and cite some of those numbers, that way at least you'll have a better idea of what you're talking about. Here we go:

Results from major US events 2006/01/01 to present day (SCGP9, Waterbury, Vintage Champs)

Fish archetypes

U/W Fish   
total=71 top8s=7 (5 are by Feinstein) top2s=0

U/R Fish   
total=11 top8s=0

URBana     
total=9  top8s=1 top2s=0

BUW Fish
total=25 top8s=2 top2s=0

TMWA     
total=20 top8s=0

Suicide
total=12 top8s=0

Worse-than-Gro
total=1 top8s=1 top2s=1

Worse-than-Fish
total=0 top8s=0

Madness
total=1 top8s=0

all other Fish (4C, BRW, RUW, BR)
total=35 top8s=0


Remove Feinstein from the equation, and the results for the past 15 months are nothing short of PATHETIC. Even so, no top2s - Fish does not win major events. Keep in mind also that Feinstein plays Null Rod Fish, while Vial Fish is nowhere to be seen in t8s. Maybe Vials just suck and belong in Legacy, not T1.


Now lets take a look at the performances of some real decks:

Control Slaver (CS, Burning Slaver, Dry Slaver) 
total=137 top8s=14 top2s=4

Gifts (TfK-Gifts, MDG)                                   
total=132  top8s=20 top2s=7

Tendrils (Grimlong, Pitchlong, TPS)                 
total=102 top8s=13 top2s=5


Other solid performers by ratio of t8 to total:

Bomberman (including Bob-bomberman) 
total=46 top8s=8 top2s=2

SS
total=34 top8s=4 top2s=2

Stax             
total=83 top8s=7 top2s=2

Intuition Tendrils
total=26 top8s=4 top2s=0

SS performed very well - maybe this and Bomberman are the best "Fish hybrids", if you can even call them that?


Other flops:

Oath           
total=95 top8s=6 (5 of those belong to the Carps, so I guess everyone else is fairly inept, just like those Fish players)

Ichorid (mana and manaless)       
total=44 top8s=2 (this is a top tier deck? It's off to a bad start, and its only going to get worse)

WGD
total=41 top8s=3 (down to 1 if I remove myself; I include this so that I cannot be accused on hating on your pet decks by citing "disparaging" evidence)

Sure, you can argue that the good players gravitate towards the powered archetypes, and if they played Fish, the Fish numbers would be much improved. Unfortunately, we have no evidence of this, although it certainly remains a possibility. What we DO have are the numbers from the last 15 months to examine, and they clearly show that the Drain and Tendrils archetypes are frontrunners, and are actually capable of winning events. Let's not speculate on what could be, but focus on what is. If you want to speculate, that I'll go out and say that if everyone that was any good played WGD, WGD would be the best deck in the format. I have no evidence to back me up but heck, these forums aren't about evidence, right?

[nataz]

Furthermore, Fish has one of the worst ratios of Fish decks entered in an event versus number of Fish decks in the t8 in major NA events in 2006 - take out Feinstein's results and the numbers get much worse.

no issues. Well, besides wanting to take out Feinstein's results. That makes no sense from any kind of math standpoint.

Even with the quantities of Fish decks played in 2006, they still lagged behind the number of Gifts, Long, and CS decks that were making it into t8s.

Again, fine...kinda, except thats not really true (using your numbers. I assume you got them from SCG)

A player of intermediate or high skill level is very likely better off playing a powered archetype then going with Fish.

whoa, huh? Wtf did this come from?

I think your numbers, and antidotal evidence, show exactly the opposite. Known good players (Dave and Becker) seem to do fine with UW Null Rod and Urbana fish respectively. 


Just some cold hard numbers,

URbana has an 11% top 8
UW has ~ 11% top 8

Slaver has ~ 10%
Gifts has ~ 15%
Tendrils has ~ 13 %


Fair nuff saying, I'm lazy, but if anyone wants to work out the SD on these, I suspect the differences are fairly non-significant.


Analyzing top 8 data *is* better then nothing, but we should all be aware of its limitations with this kinda of quick and dirty analysis.


All this being said, I think fish decks have a couple of strikes against them.

1) Most fish-esq decks tend to be meta-game foils, i.e., if you were to take a classic PTW Mono-U, or UR list and throw it into the extended rotation, it would fail terribly. It was an underpowered deck that preyed upon specific weakness inherent in the format. No weakness = game loss; see Mono-U fish against something like Mono-R goblins in the past, or TMWA v. Oath. Now, not saying that this is always true. UW fish with Joten Grunt + quick beasts for a Clock backed by a solid disruption suite may be powerful enough to break the mold. Especially when Jitte is added in from the SB. I think the same can almost certainly be said for URbana fish which actually runs the full set of moxen allowing for significantly more powerful starts.

2) Fish is a "low" cost deck in an era of proxies (no secondary expensive cards like Grim, WS, Bazaar, Drains) .: fish can be played by people with less investment in the format .: less experienced people play fish on average. With this, I've done no better then Peter, and hence have hit a couple of leaps in logic, however; I still think this is a fair proposal (albeit hard to prove, and with no actual data). 

[dicemanx]

UW has ~ 10% top 8

Or we could interpret this as: Feinstein has ~10% top 8, not necessarily UW Fish; also, don't ignore the 0% top2s. Plus, we cannot ignore the rest of the Fish archetypes, because apparently one of the selling points of Fish is the different ways that it can be constructed for the "metagame".  I suppose that if the entire argument about Fish's competitiveness hinges on a single player's success, then I'm just glad I'm not part of the Fish camp. Those that are, good luck to you.

Analyzing top 8 data *is* better then nothing, but we should all be aware of its limitations with this kinda of quick and dirty analysis.

Data can still show trends, even if the SDs don't show significant differences based on statistical analyses. Of course, this all depends on what we do with Feinstein's results. Plus, too many people are operating with NO EVIDENCE when making their arguments. At least here is something to work with, and what I was basing my previous assertions on.

I think your numbers, and antidotal evidence, show exactly the opposite. Known good players (Dave and Becker) seem to do fine with UW Null Rod and Urbana fish respectively.

My interpretation was: for an intermediate strength player or top level player deciding on an archetype to top8 with or win with, based on the strength of Drain and Long archetypes, or the very good ratios of Bomberman, those are far better choices. Your contention would be best supported if more than one strong player could show consistent results with UW Fish or URBana. Perhaps if they tried they might be successful, but again, that is speculation.

[nataz]

Data can still show trends, even if the SDs don't show significant differences based on statistical analyses. Of course, this all depends on what we do with Feinstein's results. Plus, too many people are operating with NO EVIDENCE when making their arguments. At least here is something to work with, and what I was basing my previous assertions on.

I am glad you took the time to post a data set. Even with all the inherent flaws, it is better then just randomly talking.

As for Feinstien's results, meh, you should still include them (even if to be fair I suspect the URbana results are from Becker making both deck types 1 trick equines). Look at it this way. We know something about Feinstine, but we know nothing about the other Top 8 participants. You can't exclude him because you would have to exclude all results from any person who preformed above avg. (which would also need a basic definition).

Example, say, Nate Peas. Nate went on a huge run with Gifts, and actually preformed much better then Feinstine, but you left him in the results. If Dave is artificially inflating the Fish results, is Nate artificially inflating the Gifts results?

If you take either of those players out, you would get a significant drop in EV for any particular event because we are working with such small numbers. Therefore I argue that you shouldn’t try and take ANYONE out, because doing so taints already shaky data.

If you want to work with this data set (and I think we should), then you can not discriminate against Fienstine and still expect to have any semblance of relevancy.

Your contention would be best supposed if more than one strong player could show consistent results with UW Fish or URBana. Perhaps if they tried they might be successful, but again, that is speculation.

Very good point, but again it's hard to comment with out knowing more about the other Top 8 players. Working with small data sets can be such a pain. 

You assume that because of variance (which I suspect there is), Gifts, Tendrils, etc., are "better" decks because more people can qualify with them. However, it could simply mean that Gifts, Tendrils, etc. is LESS consistent then if you just focused on Fish.

It could just as easily be a positive that Dave and Becker have done so well. In a perfect world, lets assume the following. All Top 8 players play an equal amount, and all Top 8 players play the same deck every time. If this was true, then it would look like fish is the most rewarding deck to play consistently.

Like I said, small data sets are a pain. If we wanted, we could find each players EV by cross ref their names in the SCG data base, and then work out individual deck EV's, but that I think again goes way beyond the limits of our data set in terms of SD.

[dicemanx]

We know something about Feinstine, but we know nothing about the other Top 8 participants. You can't exclude him because you would have to exclude all results from any person who preformed above avg. (which would also need a basic definition).

Example, say, Nate Peas. Nate went on a huge run with Gifts, and actually preformed much better then Feinstine, but you left him in the results. If Dave is artificially inflating the Fish results, is Nate artificially inflating the Gifts results?

There are a number of contributors to the success of Gifts - if there was only one person that contributed to that success, then I would certainly point that out. Nate is one of many individuals who have done with Gifts in major events - I was keeping track when going thorugh the data, but I'll let someone else compile that information if they feel it is necessary to scrutinize.

What I have a problem with is that the strength of the Fish archetype lies entirely within the UW Null Rod build (hence the viable Fish options are cut drastically, and I am not going to speculate on the strength of URBana until I see more numbers in high profile events), and also entirely based on one person who also didn't manage any top2s. This should be of concern to Fish advocates that are planning to play this archetype for reasons other than fun factor or budget considerations.

I suspect that you might be playing devil's advocate here, because I frankly would not put any faith in UW Null Rod Fish to perform consistently in any top level event based on the stats that I see and from personal experience in local events in the past. This would not be a deck that I would reach for if I wanted to maximize my chances of getting a tourney prize.

It could just as easily be a positive that Dave and Becker have done so well.

It might not be such a positive if your name isn't Feinstein or Becker and you're looking at how everyone else is doing with the archetype.

Ultimately, while I want to back my assertions with the evidence, anyone can interpret the evidence as they please. It will certainly not bother me in the slightest if some budding Fish player wants to massage the data in a particular way or show statistical insignificance in order to rationalize that Fish is as good a choice as any powered top tier archetype. If the Feinstein numbers convince someone of Fish's viability, that's their business. If they use anecdotal evidence or data from their local scene, they are likewise welcome to do so.

[nataz]

From a totally non-math perspective, I think that Fish has more bad match-up's then Gifts, i.e., when "bad" game states arise, gifts is more likely to be able to win out. However, I think that Ichorid has less bad match-ups then both Fish and Gifts, .: is Ichorid more powerful?

I would answer yes, but at the expense of being flexible. Gifts is more flexible then Ichorid, and Fish is even more flexible then Gifts.

Which gives us the following

% of bad board states durring an event

Fish > Gifts > Ichorid

% of bad board states + you still win

Fish > Gifts > Ichorid

I think this boils down to wrong answer at the wrong time. Fish has lots of answers, lots of mini-synergies, but if its holding a STP against a lethal tendrils, who cares. Ditto if it has a chant against a DSC.

Gifts has less answers (FOW+Drain+1-2 bounce), but gains a more focused (and therefore more powerful) strategy.

Ichorid has no answers (in the Maindeck at least), but has the most focused game plan in vintage.

It's all about a sliding scale. I think you (Peter) prefer Gifts over Ichorid and Fish because it offers a good balance against the random, but often brokenly powerful, field you will see at any given event. Preference aside however, I think the numbers show (or will show over time in the case of Ichorid) that all three strategies are viable.

P.S.
Something that you might want to include in the Data Set would be SS.